[Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts

"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Mon, 02 September 2019 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A3F120108 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JMnDFZkrD08L for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (mx1.uni-regensburg.de []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8EED120089 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 35CEC600004F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:36:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de []) by mx1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65FCD600004E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 12:36:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:36:35 +0200
Message-Id: <5D6CF0B2020000A10003343C@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.1.1
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 12:36:34 +0200
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, "Hal Murray" <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
References: <7E451B3D020000C32D505500@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <0AF611CC020000A286EDC2A6@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <5D66392D020000A100033273@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <7DA437750200007486EDC2A6@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <EC0267640200002C6A6A8CFC@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <A7C4D27502000083822C0D04@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <D5F28766020000316A6A8CFC@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <2E18D20E0200009A822C0D04@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <4B834D170200006586EDC2A6@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <831B91BE020000B87ED719BE@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <5D6CB84E020000A100033405@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <6A31A7C90200006043047E14@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <6A31A7C90200006043047E14@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/wluBnlqoNRGynXWyouXBy84ukyQ>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 10:36:45 -0000

>>> Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> schrieb am 02.09.2019 um 11:37 in
Nachricht <20190902093750.DA05940605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>et>:

> Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni‑regensburg.de said:
>> But remember that a "node" is NOT "an IP address". With multi‑homed hosts
>> can have interesting synchronization loops... ;‑) 
> Is there a problem with using an IPv6 address to identify a system?  (if you

> are multi‑homed, just pick one)
> You have to skip over fe80::, Link‑Scoped Unicast.  Are there other ranges?

Once we tried anycast (see NTP bug 3366). It was IPv4 only (eccept maybe
link-local IPv6 addresses assigned automatically)

> There is some way to map IPv4 addresses to IPv6 if you aren't using IPv6.  
> RFC‑1918 addresses won't be globally unique.  They should work if you are on

> an isolated network.  That doesn't work if you have more than one system 
> going through the same NAT box.
> Would it be simpler/cleaner to use an Ethernet host addresses?  (what are 
> they called these days?)  Are there any potential cases where an NTP server

> wouldn't have one?

I think the only reasonable solution would be "server ID" that covers all
possible network adresses of one server. Whether that server ID is just a
random value or maybe a hash of the FQHN is an open question, but IMHO 64 bits
should be enough (128 seems overkill, and 96 doesn not make much sense IMHO).


> ‑‑ 
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp